Ted Olson: Children Don't Need Mothers--or Fathers

[EveningStar]

CNSNews.com:

 

Christopher Goins

March 9, 2011

 

Former Bush Administration Solicitor General Ted Olson, who represented the plaintiffs who sued California to overturn that state's ballot-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that children do not need mothers--or fathers--and do just as well being raised by two parents of the same sex.

[NCTexan]

Well I could agree with the first part of this "well duh" quote of "the experts say"....

 

Ted Olson: "The experts on child development, from the finest experts in the world, testified that it always depends upon the quality of the parenting. So it might be you could have a bad mother who wouldn’t be as good as two fathers or two mothers. You could have parenting by the same-sex couple that could provide a vastly better environment than a mixed couple where there’s child abuse, alcohol abuse, violence and things of that nature.

 

However Ted came off the rails later on in the article. He really didn't address the "if all things are equal" aspect of "would conventional family vs same sex family be better?" JMO

[Al_Simmons]

If Barbara was still alive he wouldn't have gone off the rails.

 

Or did he suddenly "discover", in his old age, that he prefers "alternative lifestyles"?

 

I wonder. ANYONE quoting unnamed "experts" on any social issue is a lib.

[Casino67]

If Barbara was still alive he wouldn't have gone off the rails.

 

Or did he suddenly "discover", in his old age, that he prefers "alternative lifestyles"?

 

I wonder. ANYONE quoting unnamed "experts" on any social issue is a lib.

 

Does he really feel that way or just advocating for his client?

[Sabre86]

What the Freak is wrong with this guy.

 

He has obviously suffered some kind of brain damage.

[Pepper]

Leads to the absurd conclusion of the continuation of the human race via test tubes, and government day and night care.

[SrWoodchuck]

Natural evolutionary biology precludes the passing of genes, or life, through male/male & female/female breeding.

 

There are hermaphrodites & asexual species [mostly at the cellular level] that can procreate without a partner, but they are rare.

 

If this is nature.....or natural [as in coming from nature].....and the antonym, or opposite is abnormal, or unnatural....then homosexuality is an empty "act of procreation" that goes against a natural law; a "law" that ensures survival of a species. The consequence of lower animals engaging in homosexual behavior, might result in a loss of beneficial genes to a species, and possibly extinction......but at the very least, that animal species would not evolve as nature intended. [This is not even taking God's law into account-for those that believe]

 

Human beings in a free society, are able to engage in any behavior that does not harm others. They are free to believe any thing that they want, within the realm of reasonable sanity. In effect, they can deny natural selection & behavior; over deeply held personal beliefs.

 

Go for it, I say. No one has the right to deny a person their choice of an intimate partner. I accept & believe that premise.

 

I do not approve of the lifestyle, for my own reasons [both natural & religious] which is also my right. I don't believe that homosexual behavior needs to be glorified, favored or sanctioned by government fiat.

 

Homosexual partners are no less capable of the litany of horrors ascribed to heterosexual partners. They cannot procreate naturally.....so they must adopt, be inseminated or go "in vitro". The same can be said of barren & impotent heterosexuals; except heterosexuals are societies "model" for procreating.

 

Should homosexual's be discriminated against, based on sexual choice? No. Should insemination & "in vitro" procreation be denied to them? I don't think so. Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt? I don't think it's fair to the child being adopted, as an individual that will be expected to live a life-style counter to what is considered the norm. [Just my opinions]

 

Should homosexual rights take precedence over the rest of society, and should homosexuality be taught as a viable lifestyle? No, again.....just my opinion.

 

The natural model of procreation has existed in a primary role, since the first creature crawled out of the primordial oceans & onto land. I don't see a compelling reason to throw that out, and legislate the personal preferences of a small minority of Americans.

 

BTW: Only in America & free countries can this "special group" exist....in Muslim countries they're regularly "opted out of living" by government & religious decree.

 

How about you just be happy with acceptance & don't try to mandate my approval?